GRAND RAPIDS, MI - Grand Rapids Community College – like many two-year schools in Michigan – pays a lobbying firm to ensure its voice is heard on legislation and other matters at the state Capitol.

But lately, the practice has come under question by one GRCC board member.

Trustee Richard Ryskamp last week voiced opposition to the college’s annual $37,440 contract with McAlvey, Merchant and Associates, a Lansing-based governmental and political consulting firm.

He said hiring a lobbyist is likely a good investment, but pointed out that GRCC already pays the Michigan Community College Association for a similar service. He also questioned whether it’s a proper use of taxpayer money.

“When we start getting government lobbying for itself, the public can really get shafted,” Ryskamp said. “Money can be taken from them and then used to influence policy to get more money from them.”

He added that such a practice is “ostensibly for the public good," but also has the potential of "benefiting those who work for the government who are controlling the lobbying.”

Other trustees, however, disagreed with Ryskamp’s take on the issue.

Having a lobbyist was among the reasons GRCC was approved for a $5 million capital outlay appropriation to help cover the cost of renovating Cook Academic Hall, they said.

“I think it’s critical to our wellbeing,” Trustee Bert Bleke said of retaining a lobbyist. Lobbying “is a fact of American life.”

Trustees, in their discussion, said the college has long employed a lobbyist. Administrators said the same amount – $37,440 – was spent on the service last year.

Less than a quarter of the amount, $7,344, was spent on what the state defines as lobbying: “Spending money in an attempt to influence the legislative or administrative actions of state level” public officials.

Lisa Freiburger, GRCC’s vice president for finance and administration, said other dollars from the college’s contract go toward services such as “information sharing.”

That, for example, could include updates on legislative deliberations over the state’s budget pertaining to higher education and community colleges, she said.

State records show 18 of Michigan’s 28 community colleges engaged in lobbying in 2012. While GRCC spent $7,344, others spent more.

Oakland Community College had the highest expenditure, with $48,351, records show. West Shore Community College near Ludington spent $3,675, the lowest amount among schools that partook in lobbying.

Rich Robinson, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which monitors money in state politics, said lobbying by public bodies is nothing new.

"I think it's because there's competition for state budget dollars, and I think anybody who doesn't advocate as strongly as they can will lose out in the process," he said, adding that what GRCC spends would not place the college among the top 200 Michigan lobbyists.

Freiburger said that while the Michigan Community College Association does advocate on behalf of all the state’s community colleges, it’s important that GRCC have its own voice at the state-level. GRCC spends $32,670 annually on dues to the MCCA.

“A general association that advocates for community colleges … fill a number of roles, and information and advocacy is one of them,” she said. “But they’re a general association, whereas McAlvey, Merchant does direct work for us.”

She added that the firm is “available to assist us in much more specificity.”

In remarks to the board, Ryskamp suggested that GRCC administrators seek approval from the board before asking the college’s lobbyist to advocate for or against a particular issue.

“I do not think that we should have a lobbyist without strict controls,” he said. “Namely, the board should know and the public should know via formal reports to the board what is being lobbied for. And I would say preferably, public board approval should be required ahead of time before anything is lobbied for.”

But Trustee Terri Handlin disagreed with the idea.

She said such an approach to lobbying would represent the board stepping away from its role of performing oversight and into day-to-day management.

“The president,” she said, “knows when to hold ‘em, when to fold ‘em.”